DavidBM wrote on Sep 01, 2017 at 10:41 AM:
I had sworn I wasn't going to get this, despite your and Phillip's and Jannicks samples. Figured a 625g 1:2 65mm macro wasn't needed regardless of quality. After all, for actual macro the 90 is as good or better, and stoppedndown the Lox 50 is fine, and how often does one need a 65 at wide apertures??
I've just rung my local CV importer. He has stock.
Unless I control myself I'll be there late morning tomorrow to pick one up.
...
75 hours and 20 minutes from "I can see myself weakening" to "I'll be there late morning tomorrow to pick one up". Given the concerted effort to annihilate your resolve, I'm surprised and impressed that you were able to hold out so long. Particularly since your ownership of the Canon MP-E 65/2.8 means you have a genuine need for the APO Lanthar Macro 65/2.
I'll leave the last word to Guy:
GMPhotography wrote on Sep 01, 2017 at 10:59 AM:
He is toast. You watch next week it will be on his A7rII
Congratulations, David! And a fine post, Jonathon!
And, lest you think I am making fun of your "lack of resolve", David, I have a 55mm APO lens that does close-ups with tubes (Otus 55), and still, I feel the steel of my resolve turning to marshmallow....
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, both wide open (f/1.8 and f/2). Because their maximum aperture difference, they should have pretty much identical 'blur' when the 55mm is cropped to 65mm. (I posted the calculation on my previous post)
I agree that the 55/1.8 is stronger at f/2.8, so you wonder which lens improves more...Right? I am not sure but the CV will also look better at f/3.2. (equiv. to f/2.8 when the 55mm is cropped to 65mm)
In my opinion, a worthy native competitor would be the 50/1.4 ZA. I'm not putting the 55/1.8 ZA down as its one of my favorite travel lenses but these lenses (50/1.4 and CV 65/2) are a step above regarding IQ....Show more →
Thanks for this.
The most noticeable difference is in LoCA where the CV has a clear advantage. The CV also has a bit more sharpness in a couple shots. Impressive. The bokeh looks very similar to my eyes. If this CV lens was AF, I'd be all over it. But my FE 55 will remain my lens of choice in this focal length for now.
Tried for a sunrise this morning. No clouds and thus colors were not great. Also, new location for me for sunrise and the sun rose just over a mountain peak in the distance. My wife said it looked like a nipple, lol. So a different time of year will be better for that location. Anyway, just to keep samples going on this thread, here are a couple. Work tomorrow. Sigh....
Chris_88 wrote:
I hate you guys. My resolve is weakening too. I'm trying to tell myself that this is a cheaper alternative to a Leica 75mm 2/2.4, but still...
If you want to wait I'll probably be comparing it with the Leica 2.5/75. (Which for some reason I left off my list of things I should likely sell for this, in fact it's probably the best candidate for sale....)
DavidBM wrote:
If you want to wait I'll probably be comparing it with the Leica 2.5/75. (Which for some reason I left off my list of things I should likely sell for this, in fact it's probably the best candidate for sale....)
Thanks, David. Looking forward to that comparison.
For me and doing any landscape work it takes the place of a 50/85 . So early on I wanted this lens I'm not a 50 mm fan for one and my Sony 85 1.8 is just better suited for AF type shooting. I'd rather have a manual lens here and it's also a perfect product lens. That was just the focal length part and my bet it's as good as my Batis 135 APO so I really want it. I caved in on announcement. I just knew it would be good.
Chris_88 wrote:
I hate you guys. My resolve is weakening too. I'm trying to tell myself that this is a cheaper alternative to a Leica 75mm 2/2.4, but still...
Thanks Fred! It would be great to extend the test to see what happens with the aperture kicking into play. Mid aperture and f8. And the Loxia is already gone? I'd love to see f8 sharpness vs the Loxia. As sharp and contrasty as the Loxia 50 at f8 and I'm selling the Loxia tomorrow.
Wide open bokeh is one thing, but the blades can improve the bokeh or not hurt it like the Minolta 58 1.2 or Sony 55, or make it a bit worse, like the Loxia 50 or OM 50/2.
jlehet wrote:
Thanks Fred! It would be great to extend the test to see what happens with the aperture kicking into play. Mid aperture and f8. And the Loxia is already gone? I'd love to see f8 sharpness vs the Loxia. As sharp and contrasty as the Loxia 50 at f8 and I'm selling the Loxia tomorrow.
Wide open bokeh is one thing, but the blades can improve the bokeh or not hurt it like the Minolta 58 1.2 or Sony 55, or make it a bit worse, like the Loxia 50 or OM 50/2.
I have the Loxia 50 and have run comparisons. What do you want to see? My initial testing was on this topic and included Leica 75/2 and Loxia 85.
Well, I know the Loxia 50 isn't considered the best bokeh lens, but overall I like it's rendering -- even sometimes its bokeh. Mainly I use the Loxia 50 at f8 as a landscape lens and among my lenses it's about the highest bar (along with the contax g90) for sharp and contrasty.
I'm especially interested in this comparison because I think the Loxia 50 and OM 50/2 would be the lenses I would sell to get this. I usually don't carry the OM50/2 except in some moods to some places, but the Loxia 50 is core-carry.
So, I know the bokeh on the CV 65 is really nice wide open. No need to stop it down for sharpness, but sometimes a bit more DOF would be needed. Does that mess up the bokeh? (probably no worse than the Loxia 50) Then for landscape, f8, does it have that sharp brilliance if there is a lot of detail and light? Certainly not the flare resistance, I know, but you got to give up something.
Then I have to decide if the focal length could be a main carry. I can carry and use the Contax C/Y 35-70 (which I have fixed after its Iceland failure) at near full zoom and see how much I miss letting that be a 50 instead of a 70.
jlehet wrote:
Well, I know the Loxia 50 isn't considered the best bokeh lens, but overall I like it's rendering -- even sometimes its bokeh. Mainly I use the Loxia 50 at f8 as a landscape lens and among my lenses it's about the highest bar (along with the contax g90) for sharp and contrasty.
I'm especially interested in this comparison because I think the Loxia 50 and OM 50/2 would be the lenses I would sell to get this. I usually don't carry the OM50/2 except in some moods to some places, but the Loxia 50 is core-carry.
So, I know the bokeh on the CV 65 is really nice wide open. No need to stop it down for sharpness, but sometimes a bit more DOF would be needed. Does that mess up the bokeh? (probably no worse than the Loxia 50) Then for landscape, f8, does it have that sharp brilliance if there is a lot of detail and light? Certainly not the flare resistance, I know, but you got to give up something.
Then I have to decide if the focal length could be a main carry. I can carry and use the Contax C/Y 35-70 (which I have fixed after its Iceland failure) at near full zoom and see how much I miss letting that be a 50 instead of a 70....Show more →
Another option is to rent it from Lenrentals.com for $68 for a week and do the comparison yourself. You can then buy or not....
jlehet wrote:
Thanks Fred! It would be great to extend the test to see what happens with the aperture kicking into play. Mid aperture and f8. And the Loxia is already gone? I'd love to see f8 sharpness vs the Loxia. As sharp and contrasty as the Loxia 50 at f8 and I'm selling the Loxia tomorrow.
Wide open bokeh is one thing, but the blades can improve the bokeh or not hurt it like the Minolta 58 1.2 or Sony 55, or make it a bit worse, like the Loxia 50 or OM 50/2.
I already compared the CV 65/2 APO to the Loxia 50/2 at infinity at all apertures before selling it. I almost regretted selling my Loxia because it gave me so many great shots. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1506407
I will post it today. (I will post the ZM 85/4 comparison as well).
I decided to go Loxia 21, Loxia 35, CV 65 and Batis 135. For the ultra wide, I really like the 12-24/4G.
I'm hoping the Batis 135/2.8 manual focus is not as bad as the 55/1.8 ZA.
The Loxia 35 is the weaker lens wide open but I decided to give it another go after checking my images. It has lovely rendering and very high micro-contrast. It's actually really good at f/6.3 and smaller for landscapes.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I already compared the CV 65/2 APO to the Loxia 50/2 at infinity at all apertures before selling it. I almost regretted selling my Loxia because it gave me so many great shots. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1506407
I will post it today. (I will post the ZM 85/4 comparison as well).
I decided to go Loxia 21, Loxia 35, CV 65 and Batis 135. For the ultra wide, I really like the 12-24/4G.
I'm hoping the Batis 135/2.8 manual focus is not as bad as the 55/1.8 ZA.
The Loxia 35 is the weaker lens wide open but I decided to give it another go after checking my images. It has lovely rendering and very high micro-contrast. It's actually really good at f/6.3 and smaller for landscapes....Show more →
You change moderate wides like others change their shirts! ZM 35, ZM 35 with front filter, ZA 35/2.8, Zeiss ZF 28, now back to Loxia 35? What am I missing? . Sure you and Guy are not related?
Luvwine wrote:
You change moderate wides like others change their shirts! ZM 35, ZM 35 with front filter, ZA 35/2.8, Zeiss ZF 28, now back to Loxia 35? What am I missing? . Sure you and Guy are not related?
We are both Italians, so yes we are related!
Currently, I don't love any 35mm option for landscapes. The ZM 35 is awesome and I used it for almost a year. However, looking at my images at 1:1, I noticed a mid-field weakness (with the front lens). The ZA 35/2.8 is really great at infinity but I don't like its MF implementation. I still have the ZF 28/2 but I'm hoping for a Loxia 28.
With all that, I decided to give the Loxia 35/2 another try for it's mechanical MF, sunstar and rendering. Only the very extreme corners need apertures smaller than f/5.6.
Fred you will like the Batis 135 manual focus. It's got some feel to it
I'm really glad you grabbed one. I know I was putting some pressure on you but now you got a taste of the APO in the 65 I know you will like the 135.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I already compared the CV 65/2 APO to the Loxia 50/2 at infinity at all apertures before selling it. I almost regretted selling my Loxia because it gave me so many great shots. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1506407
I will post it today. (I will post the ZM 85/4 comparison as well).
I decided to go Loxia 21, Loxia 35, CV 65 and Batis 135. For the ultra wide, I really like the 12-24/4G.
I'm hoping the Batis 135/2.8 manual focus is not as bad as the 55/1.8 ZA.
The Loxia 35 is the weaker lens wide open but I decided to give it another go after checking my images. It has lovely rendering and very high micro-contrast. It's actually really good at f/6.3 and smaller for landscapes....Show more →
GMPhotography wrote:
Fred you will like the Batis 135 manual focus. It's got some feel to it
I'm really glad you grabbed one. I know I was putting some pressure on you but now you got a taste of the APO in the 65 I know you will like the 135.
I was thinking on having two great AF lenses well-corrected for LoCA (50/1.4 ZA and Batis 135/2.8), with the CV 65 APO Macro for MF and macro goodness. If the Batis 135/2.8 MF implementation is decent, I may use it for landscapes as well. So, 65/135 combo for compressed landscapes.
I actually been thinking about this . The 35 1.4 is a great lens but I can't fit it in my bag for my landscape kit really well. I thought maybe if I sold my Batis 25 bought the cheap 28 F2 for PR work and grabbed a Loxia 35 for landscape.
Than my landscape would be 12-24 and at 24 it's good stopped down, Loxia 35, VC 65, Batis 135. I can fit that in my little sling bag. I really liked the Loxia 35 but not wide open. Stopped down its very nice
Fred Miranda wrote:
We are both Italians, so yes we are related!
Currently, I don't love any 35mm option for landscapes. The ZM 35 is awesome and I used it for almost a year. However, looking at my images at 1:1, I noticed a mid-field weakness (with the front lens). The ZA 35/2.8 is really great at infinity but I don't like its MF implementation. I still have the ZF 28/2 but I'm hoping for a Loxia 28.
With all that, I decided to give the Loxia 35/2 another try for it's mechanical MF, sunstar and rendering. Only the very extreme corners need apertures smaller than f/5.6....Show more →
It's really not a big lens just don't use that stupid hood. I use a screw in that's short
It's the same length as the 35 1.4
Fred Miranda wrote:
I was thinking on having two great AF lenses well-corrected for LoCA (50/1.4 ZA and Batis 135/2.8), with the CV 65 APO Macro for MF and macro goodness. If the Batis 135/2.8 MF implementation is decent, I may use it for landscapes as well. So, 65/135 combo for compressed landscapes.
GMPhotography wrote:
Than my landscape would be 12-24 and at 24 it's good stopped down, Loxia 35, VC 65, Batis 135. I can fit that in my little sling bag. I really liked the Loxia 35 but not wide open. Stopped down its very nice
You read my mind! I grabbed a Loxia 35 for $650 at the buy and sell board and the seller swears it's well centered.
. Sure you and Guy are not related? 